Cloud Hosting

Microsoft and some big research institutions are hoping to turn the Pacific Northwest into a hotbed for quantum computing.

On Monday, Microsoft Quantum, the company's research team devoted to the field, announced that it's getting together with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Washington to form a coalition called the Northwest Quantum Nexus. The coalition plans to promote the development of quantum computing in the Pacific Northwest region, as well as in parts of Canada.

The partners are also hosting a two-day summit at the University of Washington on Monday and Tuesday that will bring together researchers and officials from universities, government agencies, and businesses. The goal is to encourage attendees to collaborate on quantum-computing projects and research.

"We're really at a moment when many businesses are starting to think about the promise of quantum information sciences and the promise of quantum computing for solving the world's most challenging problems," Krysta Svore, general manager of quantum software at Microsoft told Business Insider.

Standard computers such as PCs and smartphones process and store information in the form of binary bits, either zeros or ones. Quantum computers, by contrast, process and store data as "qubits," which can hold the values of zero and one simultaneously. That design difference could allow them to perform exponentially more calculations in a given amount of time than traditional computers, giving them the potential to solve immensely more complex problems.

Because of that, quantum computing is considered one of the most promising new technologies, with potential applications in areas ranging from discovering new drugs to cryptography to making stock predictions to calculating more efficient routes for airlines or the military. But the technology is still in its early stages, and analysts don't expect quantum computers to outperform traditional ones for another five to ten years.

Read more:Quantum computing could change everything, and IBM is racing with Microsoft, Intel, and Google to conquer it. Here's what you need to know

In December, Congress passed and the president signed the National Quantum Initiative Act, which provides $1.2 billion for research in the field. Since then, there's been increased interest from government agencies and businesses, said Nathan Baker, a director at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Krysta Svore, general manager of quantum software at Microsoft, is helping lead the company's efforts in the field. Microsoft "The Northwest is known for its outstanding physics and outstanding work in computing," Baker said. "We need to be thinking about how can we deliberately move it forward to do something bigger."

Although business and investor interest in quantum computing is growing, there's a shortage of people with skills in the field, Svore and Baker said. That's something they hope the Northwest Quantum Nexus will help address.

"There's a huge gap between quantum information sciences and all of the skills you need to bring together to make it a functioning technological platform," Baker said. "We're going to have to be deliberate in how to build that out."

In addition to helping form the Nexus coalition, Microsoft and the University of Washington are teaming up to teach students how to program quantum computers.

"Microsoft's focus is producing a scalable quantum computer and bringing that forward for our customers and for our future," Svore said. "To do that, we need to be able to accelerate the progress in quantum computing. We need to be able to educate a whole world of quantum developers."

Microsoft is developing both quantum computing hardware and software. Its effort focuses on fragmenting electrons to store information in multiple places at once.

That's different from the approach of companies such as IBM, Intel and Google, which are working on creating quantum computers that store data using superconducting circuits.

"Having devoted my life to this field, I'm overwhelmingly giddy with the prospect of the type of output we'll see with the Northwest Quantum Nexus Summit," Svore said. "I really do believe this can start the quantum revolution."

Read the original post:
Microsoft has formed a coalition to promote quantum computing ...

Can you give me a simple, concrete explanation of how quantum computers work?

Ive been asked this question a lot. I worked on quantum computing full time for 12 years, wrote 60 or so papers, and co-authored the standard text. But for many years the question stumped me. I had several pat answers, but none really satisfied me or my questioners.

It turns out, though, that there is a satisfying answer to the question, which anyone can understand if theyre willing to spend some time concentrating hard.

To understand the answer, lets back up and think first about why big media outlets like the New York Times and the Economist regularly run stories about quantum computers.

The reason is that quantum computer scientists believe quantum computers can solve problems that are intractable for conventional computers. That is, its not that quantum computers are like regular computers, but smaller and faster. Rather, quantum computers work according to principles entirely different than conventional computers, and using those principles can solve problems whose solution will never be feasible on a conventional computer.

In everyday life, all our experience is with objects which can be directly simulated by a conventional computer. We dont usually think about this fact, but movie-makers rely on it, and we take it for granted special effects are basically just rough computer simulations of events that would be more expensive for the movie makers to create in real life than they are to simulate inside a computer. Much more detailed simulations are used by companies like Boeing to test designs for their latest aircraft, and by Intel to test designs for their latest chips. Everything youve ever seen or done in your life driving a car, walking in the park, cooking a meal all these actions can be directly simulated using a conventional computer.

Because of this, when we think in concrete terms we invariably think about things that can be directly simulated on a conventional computer.

Now, imagine for the sake of argument that I could give you a simple, concrete explanation of how quantum computers work. If that explanation were truly correct, then it would mean we could use conventional computers to simulate all the elements in a quantum computer, giving us a way to solve those supposedly intractable problems I mentioned earlier.

Of course, this is absurd! Whats really going on is that no simple concrete explanation of quantum computers is possible. Rather, there is an intrinsic quantum gap between how quantum computers work, and our ability to explain them in simple concrete terms. This quantum gap is what made it hard for me to answer peoples requests for a concrete explanation. The right answer to such requests is that quantum computers cannot be explained in simple concrete terms; if they could be, quantum computers could be directly simulated on conventional computers, and quantum computing would offer no advantage over such computers. In fact, what is truly interesting about quantum computers is understanding the nature of this gap between our ability to give a simple concrete explanation and whats really going on.

This account of quantum computers is distinctly at odds with the account that appears most often in the mainstream media. In that account, quantum computers work by exploiting what is called quantum parallelism. The idea is that a quantum computer can simultaneously explore many possible solutions to a problem. Implicitly, such accounts promise that its then possible to pick out the correct solution to the problem, and that its this which makes quantum computers tick.

Quantum parallelism is an appealing story, but its misleading. The problem comes in the second part of the story: picking out the correct solution. Most of the time this turns out to be impossible. This isnt just my opinion, in some cases you can mathematically prove its impossible. In fact, the problem of figuring out how to extract the solution, which is glossed over in mainstream accounts, is really the key problem. Its here that the quantum gap lies, and glossing over it does nothing to promote genuine understanding.

None of my discussion to now actually explains how quantum computers work. But its a good first step to understanding, for it prepares you to expect a less concrete explanation of quantum computers than you might at first have hoped for. I wont give a full description here, but I will sketch whats going on, and give you some suggestions for further reading.

Quantum computers are built from quantum bits, or qubits [1], which are the quantum analogue of the bits which make up conventional computers. Heres a magnified picture of a baby quantum computer made up of three Beryllium atoms, which are used to store three qubits:

The atoms are held in place using an atom trap, which you cant see because its out of frame, but which surrounds the atoms, holding them suspended in place using electric and magnetic fields, similar to the way magnets can be used to levitate larger objects in the air.

The atoms in the picture are about three micrometers apart, which means that if you laid a million end to end, they wouldnt quite span the length of a living room. Very fine human hair is about 20 micrometers in diameter itd pretty much cover the width of this photo.

The atoms themselves are about a thousand times smaller than the spacing between the atoms. They look a lot bigger in the picture, and the reason is interesting. Although the atoms are very small, the way the picture was created was by shining laser light on the atoms to light them up, and then taking a photograph. The particles making up the laser light are much bigger than the atoms, which makes the picture come out all blurry; the photo above is basically a very blurry photograph of the atoms, which is why they look so much bigger than they really are.

I called this a baby quantum computer because it has only three qubits, but in fact its pretty close to the state of the art. Its hard to build quantum computers, and adding extra qubits turns out to be tricky. Exactly who holds the record for the most qubits depends on who you ask, because different people have different ideas about what standards need to be met to qualify as a genuine quantum computer. The current consensus for the record is about 5-10 qubits.

Okay, a minor alert is in order. Ive tried to keep this essay as free from mathematics as possible, but the rest of the essay will use a little high-school mathematics. If this is the kind of thing that puts you off, do not be alarmed! You should be able to get the gist even if you skip over the mathematical bits.

How should we describe whats inside a quantum computer? We can give a bare-bones description of a conventional computer by listing out the state of all its internal components. For example, its memory might contains the bits 0,0,1,0,1,1, and so on. It turns out that a quantum computer can also be described using a list of numbers, although how this is done is quite different. If our quantum computer has n qubits (in the example pictured above n = 3), then it turns out that the right way to describe the quantum computer is using a list of 2n numbers. Its helpful to give these numbers labels: the first is s1, the second s2, and so on, so the entire list is:

What are these numbers, and how are they related to the n qubits in our quantum computer? This is a reasonable question in fact, its an excellent question! Unfortunately, the relationship is somewhat indirect. For that reason, Im not going to describe it in detail here, although you can get a better picture from some of the further reading I describe below. For us, the thing to take away is that describing n qubits requires 2n numbers.

One result of this is that the amount of information needed to describe the qubits gets big really quickly. More than a million numbers are needed to describe a 20-qubit quantum computer! The contrast with conventional computers is striking a conventional 20-bit computer needs only 20 numbers to describe it. The reason is that each added qubit doubles the amount of information needed to describe the quantum computer [2]. The moral is that quantum computers get complex far more quickly than conventional computers as the number of components rises.

The way a quantum computer works is that quantum gates are applied to the qubits making up the quantum computer. This is a fancy way of saying that we do things to the qubits. The exact details vary quite a bit in different quantum computer designs. In the example I showed above, it basically involves manipulating the atoms by shining laser light on them. Quantum gates usually involve manipulating just one or two qubits at a time; some quantum computer designs involve more at the same time, but thats a luxury, its not actually necessary. A quantum computation is just a sequence of these quantum gates done in a particular order. This sequence is called a quantum algorithm; it plays the same role as a program for a conventional computer.

The effect of a quantum gate is to change the description s1, s2, of the quantum computer. Let me show you a specific example to make this a bit more concrete. Theres a particular type of quantum gate called a Hadamard gate. This type of gate affects just one qubit. If we apply a Hadamard gate to the first qubit in a quantum computer, the effect is to produce a new description for the quantum computer with numbers t1, t2, given by

t1 = (s1+s2n/2+1)/ 2

t2 = (s2+s2n/2+2)/ 2,

t3 = (s3+s2n/2+3)/ 2,

and so on, down through all 2n different numbers in the description. The details arent important, the salient point is that even though weve manipulated just one qubit, the way we describe the quantum computer changes in an extremely complicated way. Its bizarre: by manipulating just a single physical object, we reshuffle and recombine the entire list of 2n numbers!

Its this reshuffling and recombination of all 2n numbers that is the heart of the matter. Imagine we were trying to simulate whats going on inside the quantum computer using a conventional computer. The obvious way to do this is to track the way the numbers s1, s2, change as the quantum computation progresses. The problem with doing this is that even a single quantum gate can involve changes to all 2n different numbers. Even when n is quite modest, 2n can be enormous. For example, when n = 300, 2n is larger than the number of atoms in the Universe. Its just not feasible to track this many numbers on a conventional computer.

You should now be getting a feeling for why quantum computer scientists believe it is infeasible for a conventional computer to simulate a quantum computer. Whats really clever, and not so obvious, is that we can turn this around, and use the quantum manipulations of all these exponentially many numbers to solve interesting computational problems.

I wont try to tell that story here. But if youre interested in learning more, heres some reading you may find worthwhile.

In an earlier essay I explain why conventional ways of thinking simply cannot give a complete description of the world, and why quantum mechanics is necessary. Going a little further, an excellent lay introduction to quantum mechanics is Richard Feynmans QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. It requires no mathematical background, but manages to convey the essence of quantum mechanics. If youre feeling more adventurous still, Scott Aaronsons lecture notes are a fun introduction to quantum computing. They contain a fair bit of mathematics, but are written so you can get a lot out of them even if some of the mathematics is inaccessible. Scott and Dave Bacon run excellent blogs that occasionally discuss quantum computing, and their blogrolls are a good place to find links to other quantum bloggers.

Finally, if youve enjoyed this essay, you may enjoy some of my other essays, or perhaps like to subscribe to my blog. Thanks for reading!

Thanks to Jen Dodd and Kate Nielsen for providing feedback that greatly improved early drafts of this essay.

Michael Nielsen is a writer living near Toronto, and working on a book about The Future of Science. If youd like to be notified when the book is available, please send a blank email to the.future.of.science@gmail.com with the subject subscribe book. Youll be emailed to let you know when the book is to be published; your email address will not be used for any other purpose.

[1] Ben Schumacher, who coined the term qubit, runs an occasional blog.

[2] Motivated by this observation, in my PhD thesis I posed a tongue-in-cheek quantum analogue of Moores Law: to keep pace with conventional computers, quantum computers need only add a single qubit every two years. So far, things are neck and neck.

Read more here:
Quantum computing for everyone | Michael Nielsen